4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Tvrdošín.
5.  On 27 June 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his job in a private company due to its restructuring. The company failed to pay him his salary and a severance payment.
6.  On 31 May 1999 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court declared the company bankrupt. On 28 July 1999 the applicant registered his claim against the debtor in the ensuing bankruptcy proceedings.
7.  On 18 October 2004 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the declaration of bankruptcy as the debtor’s property was insufficient to cover the claim.
8.  In July 1997 the applicant started working in a different company. He was dismissed from his job on 28 February 1998 due to the restructuring of the company.
9.  In 1998 the applicant filed an action against the company claiming arrears of salary and a severance payment. On 11 September 1998 the Banská Bystrica District Court granted the applicant’s claim.
10.  On 19 January 1999 the applicant filed a motion for execution of the judgment. On 1 February 1999 the Banská Bystrica District Court authorised an executions officer to execute its judgment.
11.  On 26 March 1999 the executions officer informed the debtor company that execution proceedings had been brought against it and that the sum due would be transferred to the applicant from the debtor’s bank account. On the same day the company’s representative informed the executions officer that the company owned no property and that its business activities had been stopped.
12.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant concluded a contract with the executions officer concerning the enforcement of the sum due. Article II of the contract provided that the applicant did not have to pay any advance on the costs of the execution to the executions officer.
13.  On 2 November 1999 the executions officer issued an execution order under which the debtor’s banks were to transfer the relevant sum from the debtor’s account to the bank account of the executions officer. On 9 November 1999 one of the banks replied that the debtor’s deposit was insufficient for covering the debt. On 12 November 1999 the other bank replied that the debtor’s account had been closed.
14.  On 20 July 2000 the applicant filed a petition with the Slovak Chamber of Executions Officers in which he complained that the executions officer had been inactive in enforcing his claim. In a letter of 23 October 2001 the Secretary to the Slovak Chamber of Executions Officers informed the applicant that the executions officer had acted in compliance with the law. The letter stated, inter alia, that the executions officer had examined the debtor’s financial situation, that he had filed an execution order with the debtor’s banks, and that the sum in issue could not be obtained as the banks had informed the executions officer that the debtor did not own any property.
15.  On 24 August 2000 the executions officer requested the applicant to pay an advance on the costs of the execution failing which the officer would ask the District Court to discontinue the execution proceedings. In his reply of 11 September 2000 the applicant recalled that, pursuant to the contract of 20 April 1999, he was not obliged to pay any advance on costs.
16.  On 25 October 2001 the executions officer requested the District Court to discontinue the execution proceedings. On 8 February 2002 the Banská Bystrica District Court discontinued the execution proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay an advance on the costs. The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 14 March 2002. It became final on 22 April 2002.
17.  On 29 August 2002 the Registry of the Court asked the applicant for information as to whether he had used the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution enacted with effect from 1 January 2002.
18.  On 8 September 2002 the applicant replied that he had exhausted all available remedies at the time when he had lodged his application in 2000. He maintained that he was not required to use the newly introduced remedy as his case was pending before the Court. At the same time, the applicant admitted that the original alleged violation of his right resulting from delays in recovering the sums in question still continued and that, in the meantime, new violations had occurred as a result of the subsequent developments in his cases. He referred, in particular, to his submissions to the Court of 12 May 2002.
19.  On 5 February 2003 the Registry informed the applicant of the Court’s decision in the case of Andrášik and Others v. Slovakia (applications no. 57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00) of 22 October 2002 according to which in similar situations applicants should use the new remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution to the extent that it was still available to them. The applicant replied that he would try that remedy.
20.  On 17 February 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that (i) the length of both the bankruptcy proceedings of 1999 and the execution proceedings of 1999 was excessive, (ii) he had not recovered the arrears of salary which his former employers owed him, (iii) the executions officer had infringed the execution contract of 20 April 1999 and (iv) the Banská Bystrica District Court had not examined the execution contract when it had decided to discontinue the execution proceedings.
21.  In a letter of 27 February 2003 a judge of the Constitutional Court informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with as it met none of the formal requirements laid down in the Constitutional Court Act for bringing proceedings before the Constitutional Court. The letter further stated that plaintiffs had to appoint an advocate to represent them in proceedings before the Constitutional Court and that a complaint to the Constitutional Court had to be lodged within a two-month time limit.